It is be­cause all the gift re­la­tion­ships upon which we once de­pended are now paid ser­vices. They have been con­verted into ser­vice work which the mar­ket con­verts into cash. What is there left to con­vert? Whether fos­sil fuels, top­soil, aquifers, the at­mos­phere’s ca­pac­ity to ab­sorb waste; whether it is food, cloth­ing, shel­ter, med­i­cine, music, or our col­lec­tive cul­tural be­quest of sto­ries and ideas, nearly all have be­come com­modi­ties. From this per­spec­tive, a third con­se­quence of the gift cir­cle and other forms of gift econ­omy be­comes ap­par­ent. The same tran­si­tion to the gift is un­der­way in the so­cial realm. Whether nat­ural or so­cial, the recla­ma­tion of the gift-based com­mon­wealth not only has­tens the col­lapse of a growth-de­pen­dent money sys­tem, it also mit­i­gates its sever­ity.
L'appauvrissement volontaire.

Jones (Guest Author) on . I recently read Manfred Max-Neef and Philip B. Smith’s book Economics Unmasked. Its first half is an interesting critique on economic orthodoxy, its second is packed with ideas for positive social changes. I want to discuss Max-Neef’s “Threshold Hypothesis” here, but first I need to talk about economic indicators in general and more specifically GDP. By recording monetary transactions, economists can keep track of that total market value.

In my somewhat mischievous example, digging a hole added to GDP. So GDP as an economic “indicator” does not really indicate anything much. Economists working outside the mainstream realised all this years ago and developed alternative metrics, attempting to put a number on “economic health”, first called ISEW (standing for “Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare”) and later updated to GPI (standing for “Genuine Progress Indicator”).
Idées anti-autoritaires pour l'adaptation à la décroissance. Il faut un triptyque économique ! Revenu de vie, sobriété et efficacité économique. L’économie est un des piliers du développement durable.

Photograph: AGB Photo Library/REX FEATURES When I run sessions with business executives on growth, wellbeing, and innovation, I say that people don't have to buy my analysis of the problem to buy my ideas on the solution. That's because I think we are now living in an era of "uneconomic growth" and we therefore have no choice but to redefine prosperity as being about wellbeing not growth. But even if, despite all the evidence, growth is still possible or likely, surely it makes sense for our economy to move on to defining prosperity not as more "stuff" and money but more wellbeing? If you disagree with that idea, you won't like what follows, but I hope you will read on. Why do I talk about "beyond-growth" economics?